RE: Examples of Syntax and semantics

 
Adrian, 
 
thank you for your reply, but the examples you suggest do not apply to
this case.  The first is an example of identical semantics being
represented in different ways. The second is concerned with reasoning
within a single ontology.
 
The point about the example I suggested is that there is no way of
mapping the ontologies to each other directly via rules. The only way
they can be related is through an "Upper Level" ontology which
introduces new concepts (divorce,  death, ceremonies etc) which are not
part of the original ontologies at all. Presented with instances in
ontology 1 in my example it is impossible to say how they should be
placed in ontology 2 because the necessary information simply isn't
there. 
 
OK, no more from me now!
 
Tim. 
 
 
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Adrian Walker [mailto:adrianw@snet.net] 
Sent: 07 April 2006 13:47
To: Glover,T,Tim,CXR3 R
Cc: henry.story@bblfish.net; adam.saltiel@gmail.com;
semantic-web@w3.org; sowa@bestweb.net; danny.ayers@gmail.com
Subject: RE: Examples of Syntax and semantics
 
Tim --

You wrote, below -- How do you map these ontologies? 

The examples

   http://www.reengineeringllc.com/demo_agents/MergeOntologies1.agent

   http://www.reengineeringllc.com/demo_agents/Marry3.agent

show one way of doing this kind of thing.

Do you have a BT-specific example in mind?
 
                                  Cheers,  Adrian




Internet Business Logic (R)
Executable open vocabulary English 
Online at www <http://www.reengineeringllc.com/> .reengineeringllc.com
<http://www.reengineeringllc.com/>  
Shared use is free

Adrian Walker
Reengineering
PO Box 1412
Bristol
CT 06011-1412 USA

Phone: USA 860 583 9677
Cell:    USA  860 830 2085
Fax:    USA  860 314 1029



At 10:04 AM 4/7/2006 +0100, you wrote:


	Henry,
	
	
	>> Henry,
	>> Thank you for the useful reply.
	>> But I don't think this deals with the issues of mediation
between  
	>> two similar but semantically disjoint ontologies.
	
	>Show me one, and I'll look at how we can link them (if it does
not  
	>take too long)
	
	
	OK, here is one attempt at a challenge (adam - sorry if I have
missed
	the point)
	
	********************************************
	Imagine 4 ontologies. All describe the class People, and
subclasses
	Married and Unmarried.  
	
	Suppose that Clive was married but is now divorced. Diane was
married
	but is now widowed. Alice has never been married, and Bill is
married. 
	
	* In ontology 1, Clive and Diane are unmarried (unmarried means
	unmarried now) 
	
	* In ontology 2, Clive and Diane are married (married means has
gone
	through a marriage ceremony).  
	
	* In ontology 3, Clive and Diane are both married and unmarried
(married
	means has been married once, unmarried means not married now)
	
	* In ontology 4 Clive is unmarried, Bill is married, and Alice
and Diane
	are neither married nor unmarried (un-married means having been
through
	a divorce. Married means married now).
	
	How do you map these ontologies? 
	
	***********************************************
	
	>That notion is one that we keep telling you is not part of the

	>Semantic Web. It is *your* vision of the Semantic Web.
	>You have a straw man argument. You imagine we are doing
something we  
	>are not doing. Then you prove that what you imagine we are
doing is  
	>impossible. And you wrongly conclude that what we are doing is

	>impossible. Please distinguish between what you think we are
doing and
	
	>what we are doing.
	
	Who are "We" exactly? People that you happen to agree with? ;-)
	
	Tim.